Tilden was light years from today. Those day they were wearing pant and sweater.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think Tilden is ranked about where he should be (I personally have him at No 9 all-time, the Tennis Channel have him at No 10). Basically he should be bottom half of the all-time top ten.

This, by the way, is an extraordinary achievement given that he was at his peak almost 100 years ago. To still be universally ranked among the all-time top ten despite playing so long ago, when the game was much less competitive, only shows how great his achievements were.

Yet let's not pretend that he should be contending for the top spot. He was considered the GOAT of the first half of the 20th century, and has gradually slipped down the rankings since. This only makes sense - the greats of subsequent eras have dominated in more challenging times.

Oh look the grammar police are here. Sorry I made a typing mistake master. I do know the difference between you're and your, I just never proofread my post. Btw it's "on" clay not "in" clay. You're assumption is still a bad one. If you had said Federer would be Borg's pigeon on clay, that I would've agreed with, but across all surfaces, I don't think so. I think a fair majority of educated people would say McEnroe's famous phrase back to your face.

Wow, why are we even talking about anything in this thread? It's settled then, The Tennis Channel said so! It also said Fed > Laver, and that Pancho Gonzales is not even Top 10. LMFAO. Tennis Channel? More like Comedy Central.

So why do Phelps, Gretzky, Rice or Jordan are considered the greatest player to their respective sport? Because that's the consensus by general public. Federer is widely considered the greatest tennis player, so he deserve the equal respect. Capiche ?

Click to expand...

What does Phelps play? Marbles?

Winning more slams doesn't make Fed greater than Laver or Borg. It doesn't work like that. Fed failed against his main challenger, and the rest was a field full of pigeons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGvgXpuSKaE @ Borg's footwork! People talk about Federer being light on his feet but I think Borg's footwork was quicker. It's like he's floating out there on the clay. It just looks so much better than the way Nadal stomps around out there.

I consider Nadal and Borg to be about equal based on the fact that they have both won 11 Slam titles. If Nadal wins another one, he will have earned the credentials to be ahead in the comparison, IMO.

In my comparison, I have disregarded (a) competition faced (b) difference between eras (c) difference of materials and skill-sets (d) who I like more (e) career Slam (f) Olympics and other important accomplishments (g) aesthetic considerations, etc.

Nadal was already ahead of Borg on clay before this year. His dominance at events like Monte Carlo and Rome had him superior as Borg even with the same # of FO titles.

Click to expand...

I thought you said only slams matter? So if Nadal has more tune-ups than Borg on clay that means Nadal is the superior clay player but if Federer has won a few more tune-up grass events than Sampras that does not make Federer superior on grass?

If you’re going to take into consideration Borg being injured, or Fed's mono, you have to for Nadal as well. You only mention AO 2011?, there have been many others. He’s won what he has (more or less equal to what Borg won) while having withdrawn from 6 slams and played injured many others (you mentioned AO 2011, there's also AO 2010, USO 2007, USO 2009...).
He's also had to withdraw several times from the WTF.

Also, that the AO wasn’t as important back then shouldn't count against Nadal. Borg still could have played it if he chose to. Laver did and it counts high on his achievements. Same thing with having retired so early. It was his choice. All the slams Nadal has missed it hasn't been because he’s chosen to.

I think it's very close anyway, not only between them two but among all really great players.

Click to expand...

again, a perspective on history is required to understand. AO was prestigious during Laver's time - in the 60s ...

It only declined in importance from mid-70s till the mid 80s ........ the WCT /Year ending masters were far more important at that time

essentially borg won 11 majors while playing in an era of 3 majors/year ....so to be fair to him, we'd have to take into consideration the 4th most important event - the WCT /year ending masters......

I'm not holding playing the AO against nadal, but rather those who don't have a clue about history are holding borg not playing AO against him .... the fields at the AO that time were equivalent to what you'd find in a 500 event now ...

no , clueless, I'm not saying it should count against nadal, rather than it should count in favour of borg, but all you can think of is rafa , rafa, rafa .... blah, blah , blah .......

Click to expand...

Not true at all, it's just another one of your stupid assumptions. I hardly post on here, yet somehow all I've got on my mind is Rafa. LOL. then I look at your post count and see you spend the majority of your life on here and yet again LOL. Then I realise that the majority of your "discussions" are anti-Nadal and ROFLMAFAO. Keep it up.

Face it Borg couldn't adjust his game to defeat his rivals at the USO. Rafa did. And he adjusted to defeat his rivals at the AO and at WIM as well.

you are talking about rafa's adjustments to win all the majors ? jeez, borg went from slow, grinding rallies @ the FO to SnVing frequently @ wimbledon 2 weeks later ...... this isn't to downplay rafa's adjustments to win off-clay, they were very impressive, no doubt, but borg's adjustments were far more drastic/impressive ...... he didn't adjust just to win wimbledon once or twice , he won it 5 times in a row and made the final for a 6th time !

Click to expand...

Yes genius I was talking about ALL the majors, you know something Mr.Borg failed to do? If you find it more impressive to win 2 out of 4 majors than to win 4/4 than all you're doing is revealing your stupid logic and anti-Nadal agenda. Seriously did Nadal steal your goat when you were a kid?

compared to borg's 6 finals in a row ( including 5 wins ), that is not "dominant"

Click to expand...

Again Borg didn't have to play against Federer did he? so that including 5 wins in your brackets there means sfa. He wouldn't have had 5 wins in a row if he had to meet Fed in the finals 3 years in a row lol.

So Borg's 6 finals in a row vs Nadal 5 finals in a row (and yes it was 5 in a row in terms of when he played). They are both dominant periods on grass.

If he didn't have to meet Fed in the finals he would've had 4 Wimbledon titles and been only 1 behind Borg, just like if Borg had to play Fed 3 years in a row he would've most likely lost 2/3 to him and been left with 3 WIM titles instead of 5.

Point is Rafa was still very young and he had to deal with probably the greatest grass courter of all time when he was in his prime and he STILL almost won 2 out of those 3 encounters. Go and ask Federer how bad Nadal is on grass.

you don't even understand the word dominate ....... rafa may have a won a wimbledon or two by adapting there, but he sure as hell wouldn't have dominated as borg has ... he hasn't shown that level of adaptability at all ....

hell, even on the current grass, which favors him a lot more than the old, slick grass, he hasn't come close to matching borg's achievements on grass

Click to expand...

I've already gone over this stuff, feel free to read above again in case you still don't get it.

WTF are you on about? Blake, Youhzny and Gonzalez ALL had good records against Nadal at the time Ancic's only win against Nadal came on carpet. LOL and not only that Rafa beat Ancic at WIM in 2003 when he was like barely 17 but somehow in 06 Ancic would've beaten him? You fail so bad hahahahahaha.

the AO wasn't on HC till 88 .... oh and yes, he definitely had the ability to win the USO in his era , just about missed out in 80 ..... he dominated and beat connors in straights in 81 ( connors took winner mac to 5 in 80 and would win the 82 and 83 USOs )

Click to expand...

I did not mention the AO at all in this instance, I was talking purely about the USO which he failed to win because he couldn't put it together like Nadal did. Sure he might've had the ability, but I didn't say he didn't, again you highlight your poor comprehension and reading skills. I said he was not good enough to win it and the history books agree with me

borg took 4 time USO winner mac to the brink in 1980 final ( just as close as nadal did vs djoker in AO 2012 final )

and dominated connors , 5 time USO winner including thrice on HC ) winning in straights in 81 USO final

not much of a difference in playing level on HC at all ....

Click to expand...

But he couldn't WIN the US Open. What part of that do you not understand? His level was either not consistent enough to last the whole tournament OR he just didn't have the ability. Now you and I both agree he had the ability so it must be because he couldn't hold his high HC level of play long enough to win it. He failed, Nadal didn't; deal with it, that is the undisputable fact.

oh, he is pretty good off clay , no doubt , but he isn't better than borg off clay ...

Click to expand...

Hogwash, Borg wouldn't have taken the #1 ranking off Federer. No way he was going to beat him in 3 major finals consecutively to take it away. I'd even make the case that Fed would've beaten Borg at RG at least once which would further reduce Borg's chances of taking the ranking away.

Not true at all, it's just another one of your stupid assumptions. I hardly post on here, yet somehow all I've got on my mind is Rafa. LOL. then I look at your post count and see you spend the majority of your life on here and yet again LOL. Then I realise that the majority of your "discussions" are anti-Nadal and ROFLMAFAO. Keep it up.

Face it Borg couldn't adjust his game to defeat his rivals at the USO. Rafa did. And he adjusted to defeat his rivals at the AO and at WIM as well.

Click to expand...

clueless, majority of my discussions are pro-federer, not anti-nadal ...... and majority of your posts are pro-nadal

Yes genius I was talking about ALL the majors, you know something Mr.Borg failed to do? If you find it more impressive to win 2 out of 4 majors than to win 4/4 than all you're doing is revealing your stupid logic and anti-Nadal agenda. Seriously did Nadal steal your goat when you were a kid?

Click to expand...

lol @ making it 2 out 4 like the australian was highly regarded back then ...... just putting that time and again just makes you look highly dense

borg won 3 of the 4 major events of his time - Wimbledon, FO, Masters ( also WCT Dallas in 76 when the field was better than the Masters )

Again Borg didn't have to play against Federer did he? so that including 5 wins in your brackets there means sfa. He wouldn't have had 5 wins in a row if he had to meet Fed in the finals 3 years in a row lol.

So Borg's 6 finals in a row vs Nadal 5 finals in a row (and yes it was 5 in a row in terms of when he played). They are both dominant periods on grass.

If he didn't have to meet Fed in the finals he would've had 4 Wimbledon titles and been only 1 behind Borg, just like if Borg had to play Fed 3 years in a row he would've most likely lost 2/3 to him and been left with 3 WIM titles instead of 5.

Point is Rafa was still very young and he had to deal with probably the greatest grass courter of all time when he was in his prime and he STILL almost won 2 out of those 3 encounters. Go and ask Federer how bad Nadal is on grass.

Click to expand...

like, I said, take away fed for nadal and mac for borg, nadal ends up with max of 4 majors there, borg with 6 .... that's still quite a lot of difference

and nadal almost lost all 3 on 3 vs federer @ wimbledon, let's not forget that ... and an older rafa was losing to lukas rosol and djokovic .......

@ the part of 5 finals in a row ( for nadal when he played ) vs 6 for borg... I don't consider it that way, nadal not playing in 2009 does go against him ..(roddick and to a lesser extent would have a fair shot at defeating him before the finals )

even if we do agree to that for a moment , lets take a look at their semi opponents, shall we ?

WTF are you on about? Blake, Youhzny and Gonzalez ALL had good records against Nadal at the time Ancic's only win against Nadal came on carpet. LOL and not only that Rafa beat Ancic at WIM in 2003 when he was like barely 17 but somehow in 06 Ancic would've beaten him? You fail so bad hahahahahaha.

Click to expand...

because ancic was much better at 2004 and 2006 wimbledon than he was at 2003 wimbledon .........

your point of nadal beating ancic in 2003 is like saying roddick at 2009 wimbledon would have no chance vs murray @ wimbledon because a younger murray beat him in straights in 2006 ...... oh wait

roddick was in terrible form in first half of 2006 and in good form in 2009, which is why that happened

that was blake's 1st meeting with nadal - no prior record

that was the 3rd match b/w gonzo and nadal ... one in 2004 , one in 2006, 2004 one shouldn't be taken that seriously as rafa wasn't in top 30 back then , so only one match that can be taken seriously and that isn't much of a sample ...

I did not mention the AO at all in this instance, I was talking purely about the USO which he failed to win because he couldn't put it together like Nadal did. Sure he might've had the ability, but I didn't say he didn't, again you highlight your poor comprehension and reading skills. I said he was not good enough to win it and the history books agree with me

Click to expand...

being good enough to win it meaning having the ability to win it ... doesn't mean they've actually accomplished it ... otherwise one would directly use the records and wouldn't even argue about whether one had the ability to win it or not ....

Why did well past his prime Fed beat Djokovic at Wimbledon in 2012? That was in fact a year and a half later than their AO11 encounter.

Click to expand...

because even a well past prime federer can put in great performances ? just that the consistency and the ability to grind it out is lesser ... those qualities are more essential at the AO than at wimbledon .... add to it the fact that djoker is by some distance better at the AO than at wimbledon ....... jeez, it isn't rocket science ...

I also like how you conveniently like to say Borg only had 4 tries to win the USO on HC well less chance to be dominated too then, you see it works both ways lol.

Click to expand...

fair enough, but borg didn't have a propensity to get dominated when he lost at the other HC or indoor events as well ...... that is the case with nadal ........ and then I burst out laughing at the below statement of yours

Hogwash, Borg wouldn't have taken the #1 ranking off Federer. No way he was going to beat him in 3 major finals consecutively to take it away. I'd even make the case that Fed would've beaten Borg at RG at least once which would further reduce Borg's chances of taking the ranking away.

Click to expand...

umm, borg wouldn't need to beat federer thrice to get the no 1, just twice, he could definitely at the FO,and he would have a chance at wimbledon as well ...

and unlike rafa, he was darn good indoors as well, so he'd pick up more points there ...

But he couldn't WIN the US Open. What part of that do you not understand? His level was either not consistent enough to last the whole tournament OR he just didn't have the ability. Now you and I both agree he had the ability so it must be because he couldn't hold his high HC level of play long enough to win it. He failed, Nadal didn't; deal with it, that is the undisputable fact.

He couldn't beat McEnroe at the USO, he had 2 attempts and although he did push him in one of the finals, he got beat convincingly in the other.

So, as promised, I will kindly point you to Borg's failed (HC) US Open attempts:

yes, because 78 connors, 79 tanner, 80 mac, 81 mac were playing at a higher level than djoker in USO 2010 .... put rafa in the same place as borg and he probably ends up with zero majors at the USO as well .....

I will point towards rafa's first 5 failed attempts at the USO as well :

now fact is rafa did actually win the USO in 2010 and that is a major plus point for him ........ But level wise, he isn't that much above borg there ...their winning %s on HC are also very similar ...

however borg's major plus point is that he simultaneously dominated clay/grass when they were polarized ( quite a bit more than today )

add to that, he's much better indoors and won the major indoor tournaments at his time ....( which btw were more important back then than the AO )

Disagree completely, every era is harsh, probably the era of feeder/nadal is the weakest one considering that apart those 2 the rest, before djoko and murray raise, wasn't really a serious danger.

Players like federer and nadal exist now because 30 years ago existed people like Borg, connors, lendl etc etc. People that at their time they were the best because they we're bringing to tennis something new or something more than the others setting standards and inspiring players of the future generations like us, including the big champions of the tour.
You can't compare champions of different eras, of course the actual ones are stronger, that is due because of course 30 years more of history much more money around therefore much more involvement of professionalism.

Click to expand...

That's why they're better. You don't know how a player from an era in the 80s would do against somebody now, because that isn't feasible. That is not something that we can predict, we can speculate and speculate, but that won't determine a true outcome.

Players of the past are of course inferior to players of the present, technology and advanced training methods do matter and do count. Withdrawing that statement because you believe that it isn't a good base for a comparison is also not feasible. Players like Borg, Connors and the like would pale in comparison to Federer and Nadal simply because they're more advanced and have had better ways to train. Pit them against each other in their primes and they would fall short to the "greats" of this era.

I thought you said only slams matter? So if Nadal has more tune-ups than Borg on clay that means Nadal is the superior clay player but if Federer has won a few more tune-up grass events than Sampras that does not make Federer superior on grass?

I see double standards!

Click to expand...

Grass doesnt even have a Masters, so yes on grass all that matters is Wimbledon. If one is REALLY desperate they could argue Queens as having some value, a 500 event. Even that would be meaningless for Federer though as Federer never even plays Queens, any of his non Wimbledon grass victories are Halle, a 250 event, and yes I would say a 250 event has no value to anyone but a tour journeyman, and is meaningless in discussing GOATs. Are you comparing Halle to Rome or Monte Carlo now, LOL! Always fun to explain simple and obvious things to incredibly stupid people.

Lol at abmk trying to boost his post count even further by triple posting and requoting the same things over and over again. You would think after 9000 posts you would have got the hang of understanding how to quote posts properly, but then again I do realise you are slow so perhaps you will learn in your next 9000 posts...

First of all, I am 100% right when I said Borg won only 2/4 majors because regardless of how highly the AO was regarded back then it is still a major.

And lol how you ask why I said from 2011 onwards add McEnroe to Rafa's path when I just explained why. McEnroe didn't make it to the 79 WIM final he was NOT a threat to Borg until 80 that's why we add him to the most recent 2 Wimbledon's of Rafa's path. So Rafa 4 and Borg 2-3 in WIM titles because Fed would not disappear off Earth after facing Borg in the first 3 finals.

And lol how you call the 81 WIM final an extremely close match, it was close no doubt but not extremely close. Another one of your biased opinions to try and favor your argument. What an ignorant human being you are hahaha.

Your Federer past his prime argument holds absolutely no water either, in USO 11 Fed had MP's against him and the same goes for USO10 which was only a few months before AO11. Fed didn't lose because he's past his prime he just got his arse kicked and only junk tennis gave him a lead in the second set.

Fed had a very dominant and consistent period at the end of 2011 and 2010 wasn't too bad either. His form going into the 2011 AO was very good as it was with AO12 but we all know what happened at this year's AO so I shouldn't repeat it should I?

Power hitting is also very threatening to anyone when the shots keep going in, just look at the Nadal v Rosol result. He blasted winners left right and center especially in the fifth set. Do you really think Rosol would've been able to do that with a wooden racquet?

And Borg would most definitely have to beat Fed thrice because he wouldn't be picking up any points at AO now would he? Fed would make the final of EVERY major and most likely at the very least win AO and USO. Lol I like how you think you know what you're on about but really you have nfi. lol.

With the Wimbledon paths, you look at semi opponents, yeah I agree Borg had it tougher than Rafa, but then I look at the final opponents and see that Rafa had to play FEDERER 3 years in a row. I look at Borg and while he did have some tough final opponents they were certainly no Roger Federer pal.

because ancic was much better at 2004 and 2006 wimbledon than he was at 2003 wimbledon .........

Click to expand...

OMG dude you are off this planet now hahahahahaha. So Ancic beats Federer in the FIRST round in 02 WIM, but has a bad 03 WIM only to bounce back and have a great 04 and 06 WIM?

Let me make something perfectly clear, Ancic's 06 WIM was NOTHING special, Novak ALMOST beat him lol and if you seriously think he would have had a chance at beating Nadal in the 06 final you are kidding yourself.

your point of nadal beating ancic in 2003 is like saying roddick at 2009 wimbledon would have no chance vs murray @ wimbledon because a younger murray beat him in straights in 2006 ...... oh wait

Click to expand...

Murray's history of crumbling and not performing at his best when under pressure is well documented so it's no surprise he didn't bring his best in his first ever WIM semi final. I've already gone over this whole Ancic thing so time to stop humiliating yourself by thinking Ancic was even a snowball's chance in hell of beating Nadal in 06 WIM because I refuse to believe you're THAT stupid.

that was the 3rd match b/w gonzo and nadal ... one in 2004 , one in 2006, 2004 one shouldn't be taken that seriously as rafa wasn't in top 30 back then , so only one match that can be taken seriously and that isn't much of a sample ...

rafa was actually 3-1 vs youzhny before that US Open match

so you fail majorly with this so called argument as well ......

Click to expand...

Dude I missed a semi-colon after saying they all "had good records against Nadal; at the time Ancic's...

So I wasn't referring to their records against Nadal at the time just Ancic's. I meant their records in general against Nadal were pretty good especially early on in Rafa's career.

So yeah missed a semi-colon, big deal it's not like I'm writing a program here and not as big a screw up as triple quoting

And Nadal being the only man in history to win slams on clay, grass and hardcourt in a Calendar Year counts for nothing? And 21 masters shields? Borg somehow overcomes all this?

Click to expand...

Nadal's AO title counts for next to nothing in a comparison with Borg, since Borg hardly ever played there. His USO title and managing to win this in the same season he won on grass and clay as well, certainly does count in his favour. His Masters shields are close to irrelevant in a comparison of all-time greats, they are not the highest level of competition in tennis.

In Borg's favour he has two YECs on carpet (where Nadal has been very poor and has only reached one final), more time at No 1, more total tournaments, an even higher winning percentage at the slams (won 11/27 which he contested), all-time record Davis Cup winning streak (33 matches).

But most importantly, he dominated on two incredibly polarised surfaces (clay and old grass) simultaneously. This combined with winning on carpet and coming very close to winning the US on hard means I consider him marginally more versatile than Nadal, despite the latter winning slams on grass, clay and hard.

As I said it is very, very close between them and I certainly wouldn't find it ridiculous that someone ranks Nadal ahead. But I personally rank Borg above - just - at this stage.

Lol at abmk trying to boost his post count even further by triple posting and requoting the same things over and over again. You would think after 9000 posts you would have got the hang of understanding how to quote posts properly, but then again I do realise you are slow so perhaps you will learn in your next 9000 posts...

Click to expand...

lol, it was a mistake caused because of logout problems .... but then you are Mr.Perfect with quoting posts, right ? jeez, what an achievement !

And lol how you ask why I said from 2011 onwards add McEnroe to Rafa's path when I just explained why. McEnroe didn't make it to the 79 WIM final he was NOT a threat to Borg until 80 that's why we add him to the most recent 2 Wimbledon's of Rafa's path. So Rafa 4 and Borg 2-3 in WIM titles because Fed would not disappear off Earth after facing Borg in the first 3 finals.

Click to expand...

but rafa in 2012 didn't even come close to making it to the 2nd week ... you add mac when he was ie. 2011, 2010 to be fair .....

And lol how you call the 81 WIM final an extremely close match, it was close no doubt but not extremely close. Another one of your biased opinions to try and favor your argument. What an ignorant human being you are hahaha.

Click to expand...

it was 4-6,7-6,7-6,6-4 with both players winning 2/15 of their BPs ... mac won 160 points, borg 154 ... hell yeah, that was a pretty close match >> you'd know if you had seen it ...

Your Federer past his prime argument holds absolutely no water either, in USO 11 Fed had MP's against him and the same goes for USO10 which was only a few months before AO11. Fed didn't lose because he's past his prime he just got his arse kicked and only junk tennis gave him a lead in the second set.

Fed had a very dominant and consistent period at the end of 2011 and 2010 wasn't too bad either. His form going into the 2011 AO was very good as it was with AO12 but we all know what happened at this year's AO so I shouldn't repeat it should I?

Click to expand...

so federer is in his prime from 2004-till now ????? LOL , ha ha ha ha ......

end of 2010, 2011 was mainly indoors, where consistency/stamina/elements are less of a factor ....

Power hitting is also very threatening to anyone when the shots keep going in, just look at the Nadal v Rosol result. He blasted winners left right and center especially in the fifth set. Do you really think Rosol would've been able to do that with a wooden racquet?

Click to expand...

guess you missed the memo that there were loads of SnVers at that time ... if there were lesser power hitters back then, there are very few SnVers now ...

power hitters aren't the only type of threats .... there were more varied styles of play back then ...

point is you are only thinking this from rafa's point of view ..... not from the context of both the generations ...

And Borg would most definitely have to beat Fed thrice because he wouldn't be picking up any points at AO now would he? Fed would make the final of EVERY major and most likely at the very least win AO and USO. Lol I like how you think you know what you're on about but really you have nfi. lol.

Click to expand...

not that tough when we are talking about the federer of 2008 or 2010 when rafa took over no 1 ... if you are talking about the federer of 2004-2007 or 2009 , then yeah , borg would have it tough , but then nadal didn't take over when fed was at his best either ...

With the Wimbledon paths, you look at semi opponents, yeah I agree Borg had it tougher than Rafa, but then I look at the final opponents and see that Rafa had to play FEDERER 3 years in a row. I look at Borg and while he did have some tough final opponents they were certainly no Roger Federer pal.

Keep trying though, seriously you're good for a laugh.

Click to expand...

but borg of 78 would have more decent shot at beating federer in 2008 ...
you mentioned nadal's 5 finals in a row ( when he played ) ... it probably wouldn't be if he faced tougher opponents in the semis like borg did -> nadal lost to rosol in 2012 and djoker in 2011 ...

and like I said before , this was on grass which favoured rafa's game more than the old, slick grass in borg's day .......it'd be worse for rafa there ....

OMG dude you are off this planet now hahahahahaha. So Ancic beats Federer in the FIRST round in 02 WIM, but has a bad 03 WIM only to bounce back and have a great 04 and 06 WIM?

Let me make something perfectly clear, Ancic's 06 WIM was NOTHING special, Novak ALMOST beat him lol and if you seriously think he would have had a chance at beating Nadal in the 06 final you are kidding yourself.

Click to expand...

lol and robert kendrick was 2 points away from beating nadal in 06 @ wimbledon, do you remember or have you erased that from your mind ???? :lol:

ancic in the QF vs fed in 2006 was playing well and federer played an excellent match to win it in straights >> you'd know if you had actually seen the match

as far as ancic in 2002/2003 concerned, he beat federer in 2002 because federer was a headcase at that time and it was a first round match ... ancic didn't go much farther, his ranking was pretty low at that time ..

Murray's history of crumbling and not performing at his best when under pressure is well documented so it's no surprise he didn't bring his best in his first ever WIM semi final. I've already gone over this whole Ancic thing so time to stop humiliating yourself by thinking Ancic was even a snowball's chance in hell of beating Nadal in 06 WIM because I refuse to believe you're THAT stupid.

Click to expand...

so, let's see murray's history of "crumbling & not performing his best under pressure" comes only into the picture now ????

what you described didn't happen in the 2009 SF though ... he was playing well and roddick just plain beat him ...

a classic example of what you described was in the 2011 SF ... Murray after playing a very good first set , lost it when he missed a routine FH on a BP on rafa's serve in the 2nd ...... he only recovered towards the end set 3rd set, by which time , he had nearly lost two sets ... and then just played decent tennis afterwards in the final set ...

then there was the mini-choke in the 2nd set breaker in the 2010 SF, when up a SP in the breaker and on serve, misses the first serve, puts in a weak 2nd serve and totally goes on the defensive allowing rafa to dictate and win the point ... major credit to rafa for managing to dictate the point, but murray had his chance there ...

so whom exactly did rafa face as that major a threat till the finals at wim ?????? :lol:

borg faced red hot tanner, at his very best gerulatis and connors ( twice ) in the semis ...

the comparison isn't even close !!! inspite of the federer factor, rafa still is behind by some distance ... if he was beating everyone but federer in all these years ( not just 2006-08 ), you might have a point , but he lost to djoker in 2011 and rosol in 2012 ( & didn't play in 2009, where roddick and to a lesser extent hewitt would have a good shot at beating him )

anyways coming back to the original point, just because rafa beat ancic at wimbledon when they were both young, doesn't guarantee he'd win in 2006 as well .....

Dude I missed a semi-colon after saying they all "had good records against Nadal; at the time Ancic's...

So I wasn't referring to their records against Nadal at the time just Ancic's. I meant their records in general against Nadal were pretty good especially early on in Rafa's career.

So yeah missed a semi-colon, big deal it's not like I'm writing a program here and not as big a screw up as triple quoting

Click to expand...

no, like I proved, at the time of those meetings, they didn't have any significant edge over rafa at all ...... so you'd be saying they wouldn't have a chance against the world #2, rafa .... just like you are saying for ancic in wimbledon at 2006 .....

A comparison between Fed and Sampras is far easier to do (and even in that case there are various difficulties) than a comparison between Borg and Nadal (or Fed, Sampras for that matter etc.).

In Nadal, Fed and Sampras' era AO is clearly at worst the 4th most important tourney of the year while arguably tourneys Basel and Dubai today have better fields than AO did in Borg's day.

As much as people (though mainly Nadal fans to be precise) ridicule WTF/YEC today it was the 4th most important even in Borg's era and he did very well there (overall he was a terrific player on indoor carpet while Nadal struggles on slow indoor HC).

Regarding USO, true Nadal won the title but Borg reached 4 USO finals and arguably had the toughest competition there out of any tennis great (McEnroe and Connors are some of the best USO players of all time and Borg had them both in the way and at their peaks/primes), given that (some) Nadal fans love to bring the competition argument even when compared to a player largely from the same era (Fed) they should realize that a case can be easily made for Borg in that regard.

There's also the matter of the polarization of surfaces, grass and clay were complete polar opposites in Borg's day and his continued dominance in both of those tourneys is one of the most impressive feats in tennis ever (if not even the most impressive).

It is very hard to make a straightforward comparison between Borg and any other modern (say since 1990) tennis great, personally I wouldn't even put Fed above him and Nadal still has some ways to go to match Fed's achievements overall.

Nadal's AO title counts for next to nothing in a comparison with Borg, since Borg hardly ever played there. His USO title and managing to win this in the same season he won on grass and clay as well, certainly does count in his favour. His Masters shields are close to irrelevant in a comparison of all-time greats, they are not the highest level of competition in tennis.

In Borg's favour he has two YECs on carpet (where Nadal has been very poor and has only reached one final), more time at No 1, more total tournaments, an even higher winning percentage at the slams (won 11/27 which he contested), all-time record Davis Cup winning streak (33 matches).

But most importantly, he dominated on two incredibly polarised surfaces (clay and old grass) simultaneously. This combined with winning on carpet and coming very close to winning the US on hard means I consider him marginally more versatile than Nadal, despite the latter winning slams on grass, clay and hard.

As I said it is very, very close between them and I certainly wouldn't find it ridiculous that someone ranks Nadal ahead. But I personally rank Borg above - just - at this stage.

Click to expand...

Total bs. It's not Nadal's fault that Borg chose to skip the AO. Nadal won the AO and Borg did not so Nadal's AO title doesn't count since Borg skipped it? Borg never won the USO after having a number of cracks at it. He only won 2 of the 4 slams. Too bad for Nadal haters like you Nadal surpassed Borg when he finally got to 11 slams considering he has THE CAREER SLAM AND BORG DOES NOT. There are other numerous reasons Nadal has surpassed Borg as well, but I'm not going to waste my time explaining them because people like you won't get it anyway.

Also, let's discount all of Fed and Cvac's AO titles because Borg never won it. Fed doesn't have the career slam either according to this dumb logic. And when Cvac wins RG next year, he won't have the career slam either since Borg never won it. As a matter of fact let's take away Andre's career slam as well since Borg never won it. Makes perfect sense, right?

It's plain to see the only people arguing in favor of Borg are *******s/Nadal haters. It's very clear to see why these people are picking Borg, and that alone makes their opinion worth less than used toilet paper. I mean, we have one ******* arguing about imaginary years at #1 for Borg, and trying to count that as part of Borg's achievements. Laughable doesn't even begin to describe the desperation and lengths these people will go to in order to denigrate Nadal's career(inculding trying to discount his AO title). You people won't give him credit for anything.

Total bs. It's not Nadal's fault that Borg chose to skip the AO. Nadal won the AO and Borg did not so Nadal's AO title doesn't count since Borg skipped it? Borg never won the USO after having a number of cracks at it. He only won 2 of the 4 slams. Too bad for Nadal haters like you Nadal surpassed Borg when he finally got to 11 slams considering he has THE CAREER SLAM AND BORG DOES NOT. There are other numerous reasons Nadal has surpassed Borg as well, but I'm not going to waste my time explaining them because people like you won't get it anyway.

Click to expand...

I disagree that nadal's AO doesn't count, it does of course ...... A fair comparison in borg's era would be the Masters ( which he won twice ) and was wayyyyy more prestigious than the AO ...

so he won 3 of the 4 major events of his time ..... nadal's plus point is he won all 4

but borg's plus point is his simultaneous domination over clay and grass when they were more polarized than now ...

another plus point of course is that he was much better indoors than rafa ...

It's plain to see the only people arguing in favor of Borg are *******s/Nadal haters. It's very clear to see why these people are picking Borg, and that alone makes their opinion worth less than used toilet paper. I mean, we have one ******* arguing about imaginary years at #1 for Borg, and trying to count that as part of Borg's achievements. Laughable doesn't even begin to describe the desperation and lengths these people will go to in order to denigrate Nadal's career(inculding trying to discount his AO title). You people won't give him credit for anything.

Click to expand...

borg was no1 in 78,79,80 and arguably in 77 ... it was only the stupid ranking system in 78 that put connors at #1 in 78 ......

its funny that you talk about people not giving credit to nadal for anything when you repeated ad nauseum that nadal playing very well on clay wouldn't defeat djoker in the FO 2012 final ......

a little bit of perspective in history regarding borg's time and his achievements would also help .....

Total bs. It's not Nadal's fault that Borg chose to skip the AO. Nadal won the AO and Borg did not so Nadal's AO title doesn't count since Borg skipped it? Borg never won the USO after having a number of cracks at it. He only won 2 of the 4 slams. Too bad for Nadal haters like you Nadal surpassed Borg when he finally got to 11 slams considering he has THE CAREER SLAM AND BORG DOES NOT. There are other numerous reasons Nadal has surpassed Borg as well, but I'm not going to waste my time explaining them because people like you won't get it anyway.

Click to expand...

I didn't mean Nadal's AO title doesn't count per se, of course it does (in fact it was one of his most impressive major victories, with back-to-back wins in incredibly close matches against Verdasco and Federer). I was saying that the AO can't be used as one of the big 4 tournaments in Borg's era - instead it should be the YEC. In which case Borg has 13 major tournament victories.

But you are absolutely right - the major argument for Nadal > Borg is the fact that he won all the major tournaments of his time whereas Borg could not win the USO, despite it being played on grass, clay and hard during his time.

I'm not a Nadal hater at all - I said, as any reasonable person would, that Nadal and Borg are very evenly matched. I just happen to put Borg marginally ahead (because I don't like copping out and ranking players equal). It's thoroughly defensible to say Nadal is ahead as well, as you do, but you don't have to call anyone who disagrees with you a Nadal hater.

Total bs. It's not Nadal's fault that Borg chose to skip the AO. Nadal won the AO and Borg did not so Nadal's AO title doesn't count since Borg skipped it? Borg never won the USO after having a number of cracks at it. He only won 2 of the 4 slams. Too bad for Nadal haters like you Nadal surpassed Borg when he finally got to 11 slams considering he has THE CAREER SLAM AND BORG DOES NOT. There are other numerous reasons Nadal has surpassed Borg as well, but I'm not going to waste my time explaining them because people like you won't get it anyway.

It's plain to see the only people arguing in favor of Borg are *******s/Nadal haters. It's very clear to see why these people are picking Borg, and that alone makes their opinion worth less than used toilet paper. I mean, we have one ******* arguing about imaginary years at #1 for Borg, and trying to count that as part of Borg's achievements. Laughable doesn't even begin to describe the desperation and lengths these people will go to in order to denigrate Nadal's career(inculding trying to discount his AO title). You people won't give him credit for anything.

Click to expand...

Because the people that are arguing for Nadal are not "*******s" right? Oh wait... You seem to have the same grouping problem as NadalAgassi does. I'll leave it there.

Fact is, the AO wasn't a big event in Borg's time. It was the equivalent of a 500 or maybe even a 250 that was at the end of November. Call me crazy, but even though it was on outdoor grass, I wouldn't favour Nadal to win it at that time either. Nobody is trying to discount Nadal's AO win (apart from the biggest fanboys). It counts for a lot today in a comparison of the top players since say the mid to late 80's, but in comparison between Nadal (and any other top player today) and Borg, it can't really be used as any evidence of any kind.

Because the people that are arguing for Nadal are not "*******s" right? Oh wait... You seem to have the same grouping problem as NadalAgassi does. I'll leave it there.

Fact is, the AO wasn't a big event in Borg's time. It was the equivalent of a 500 or maybe even a 250 that was at the end of November. Call me crazy, but even though it was on outdoor grass, I wouldn't favour Nadal to win it at that time either. Nobody is trying to discount Nadal's AO win (apart from the biggest fanboys). It counts for a lot today in a comparison of the top players since say the mid to late 80's, but in comparison between Nadal (and any other top player today) and Borg, it can't really be used as any evidence of any kind.

Click to expand...

Oh please. Go back and read through this thread and look at who most of the people picking Borg and claiming Nadal's AO title doesn't count are fans of. Just a coincidence, huh?

No, not "any other top player today", because *******s would never say that Fed's AO titles don't count when compared to Borg. Neither would the *********s(most of which are really *******s anyway). It only applies to Nadal and no one else.

Oh please. Go back and read through this thread and look at who most of the people picking Borg and claiming Nadal's AO title doesn't count are fans of. Just a coincidence, huh?

No, not "any other top player today", because *******s would never say that Fed's AO titles don't count when compared to Borg. Neither would the *********s(most of which are really *******s anyway). It only applies to Nadal and no one else.

Click to expand...

Again, there is nobody really saying Nadal's AO title doesn't count (apart from the biggest fanboys). You must read between the lines here, and stop playing the injured party. If you read phoenix's most recent post you will see this. Djokovic is not on Borg's level yet so that comparison is irrelevant. And in Federer's case even if we didn't count his AO titles (which we shouldn't when comparing the two), he still has 2 more majors than Borg, and 6 YEC to 2. Don't make this about Nadal getting the short end of the stick when compared to Federer or Djokovic when you know full well there are just as many reasons for people to vote for Borg as there are for Nadal.

Now if you asked me who was a better clay court player between Nadal and Borg, I would say Nadal. If Nadal was losing a poll titled "Who is the greatest clay court player of all time?" I would be the first to say that Nadal was getting unfair treatment. Again, Federer fans and "*******s/Nadal haters" are not the same thing. Neither are Nadal fans and "*******s/Fed haters.

Oh please. Go back and read through this thread and look at who most of the people picking Borg and claiming Nadal's AO title doesn't count are fans of. Just a coincidence, huh?

No, not "any other top player today", because *******s would never say that Fed's AO titles don't count when compared to Borg. Neither would the *********s(most of which are really *******s anyway). It only applies to Nadal and no one else.

Click to expand...

Stop whining. All anyone has said is that in Borg's era the AO wasn't such a big deal. So Borg shouldn't be criticized for not winning the AO. The career slam is a show of versatility really, Borg has that in spades winning the FO 6 times and the polar opposite Wimbledon 5 times.

Again Borg didn't have to play against Federer did he? so that including 5 wins in your brackets there means sfa. He wouldn't have had 5 wins in a row if he had to meet Fed in the finals 3 years in a row lol.

So Borg's 6 finals in a row vs Nadal 5 finals in a row (and yes it was 5 in a row in terms of when he played). They are both dominant periods on grass.

Nadal's AO title counts for next to nothing in a comparison with Borg, since Borg hardly ever played there. His USO title and managing to win this in the same season he won on grass and clay as well, certainly does count in his favour. His Masters shields are close to irrelevant in a comparison of all-time greats, they are not the highest level of competition in tennis.

In Borg's favour he has two YECs on carpet (where Nadal has been very poor and has only reached one final), more time at No 1, more total tournaments, an even higher winning percentage at the slams (won 11/27 which he contested), all-time record Davis Cup winning streak (33 matches).

But most importantly, he dominated on two incredibly polarised surfaces (clay and old grass) simultaneously. This combined with winning on carpet and coming very close to winning the US on hard means I consider him marginally more versatile than Nadal, despite the latter winning slams on grass, clay and hard.

As I said it is very, very close between them and I certainly wouldn't find it ridiculous that someone ranks Nadal ahead. But I personally rank Borg above - just - at this stage.

Click to expand...

If Nadal's AO doesn't count, Borg's dominance of two very different surfaces wouldn't either.

@ the part of 5 finals in a row ( for nadal when he played ) vs 6 for borg... I don't consider it that way, nadal not playing in 2009 does go against him ..(roddick and to a lesser extent would have a fair shot at defeating him before the finals )

even if we do agree to that for a moment , lets take a look at their semi opponents, shall we ?

for that argument to have validity, he'd have to defeat all other quality opponents apart from federer ( he didn't face many, it pales in comparison to borg ) ... the year where it was more likely he would ( not that he knew of course ), 2009, he missed out ....

yes, whether borg was no 1 in 77 goes, its debatable .... borg was clear no 1 in 78, 79, 80 ......by some distance more time than rafa ... just because the stupid rankings at that time don't show he was no 1 in 78, doesn't mean he wasn't .......

If Nadal's AO doesn't count, Borg's dominance of two very different surfaces wouldn't either.

And Masters have the top players in them, of course they count also.

The time at number one is debatable. And there's the OG as well.

Click to expand...

Time at number one is an important stat, it shows consistancy. It shows that you were the best in a given year. The OG has only recently become important, and it's not slam calibre either.

Nadal's AO should count, ofcourse it should. I think the issue is more saying Nadal is better than Borg because Borg didn't win an AO. Which is nonsense. Nadal's AO win counts towards his slam count, it's not valid to denigrate Borg's lack of.